Dissecting Loonwatch’s ‘10 Myths about Muslims in the West’

Saturday, 22 September 2012 03:14
Jon MC

When used solid statistics and facts, Loonwatch's so-called myths turn out rather facts, and its myth-bustings get closer to myth...

Muslims have been circulating the article 10 Myths about Muslims in the West from loonwatch.com, written by author and journalist Doug Saunders and first appeared in Huffington Post. The article is interesting, but what is more interesting is the way in which Loonwatch presents “straw-man” arguments in its myths, but still has to use dubious statistics to support its “myth-busting”.

1.Muslims have a higher birth rate than other religions, and will take over the world by population

Two generations ago, it seemed as if Islamic countries were destined for out-of-control population growth. People spoke of an “Islamic fertility rate” – more than 5 children per family, on average – and predicted minaret spires foresting the Earth. Today, it is readily apparent that Islam is not connected with population growth. Just look at Iran, the world’s only Islamic theocracy, where the average family had around 7 children in the 1980s and has 1.7 today, a lower rate than France or Britain. Or look at the United Arab Emirates, with 1.9 children per family. Or Turkey, ruled by an elected party of devout Muslims for a decade, which now has 2.15 children per family. Or Lebanon, where, despite Hezbollah’s rise, has only 1.86 children per family (so that its population will be shrinking). Around the world, the average Muslim family size has fallen from 4.3 children per family in 1995 to 2.9 in 2010, and is expected to fall below the population-growth rate, and converge with Western family sizes, by mid-century. This is a crucial sign that Muslim societies are undergoing a major modernizing, secularizing wave, even if they elect Islamist parties while doing so.

According to Loonwatch the worldwide Muslim fertility rate is still 2.9, which represents a 45% increase in population generationally.

PF projections suggest a 35% increase in the Muslim population by 2030 years, which – taking a “generation” as 30 years – represents a 52.5% increase in a generation. Not that dissimilar.

The best estimate for world population in 2010 is 6.9 billion. It is generally expected to reach 8 billion by 2030, an increase of 16%.

Therefore Muslim fertility rates will be somewhat over twice that of non-Muslims throughout this period. PF also shows that the percentage rate of increase of Muslims is consistently double that of non-Muslims over this period. [1, 2]

Loonwatch uses the “straw-man” fallacy here: the “take over the world by population” statement is unlikely for the foreseeable future, but relatively high Muslim birth-ratesare a fact.

It’s also interesting that they have to quote what are, from their own figures, “outliers” in terms of Muslim fertility (Iran, Lebanon[3]) in order to make their case.

Their worst error is in stating: “Muslim family size … is expected to fall below the population-growth rate, and converge with Western family sizes, by mid-century.” There is absolutely no evidence for this that I can find. Up until 2030 the best projection show Muslim population growth consistently twice that of non-Muslims, so unless in the 20 years up to 2050, “Muslim family size” suddenly plummets, a “fall below the population-growth rate” is very unlikely – to put it mildly.

A second major error is in asserting “Muslim societies are undergoing a major modernizing, secularizing wave-even if they elect Islamist parties”; which is two lies for the price of one: there is no evidence that the “Arab spring” is yielding secularisation (but plenty that it’s yielding Islamisation) and the election of “Islamist parties” won’t progress to secularisation – at least unless these parties abandon their platforms intoto.

2. Immigrants from Muslim countries are going to swamp us

People look at the huge families of many new Muslim immigrants and imagine them multiplying at exponential rates. But this is a bit of an illusion- as are many of the figures suggesting that Muslim immigrants have fertility rates higher than in their homelands. This is because most new immigrants have most of their children in the years immediately after their arrival. The way we calculate Total Fertility Rate – the measure of average family size – is by taking the total number of births a woman has had and extrapolating it across her fertile life. As a result, immigrants appear to have more children than they really do. In reality, the family sizes of Muslim immigrant groups are converging fast with those of average Westerners – faster, it seems, than either Jewish or Catholic immigrants did in their time. Muslims in France and Germany are now having only 2.2 children per family, barely above the national average. And whilePakistani immigrants in Britain have 3.5 childreneach, theirBritish-born daughters have only 2.5. Across Europe, the difference between the Muslim and non-Muslim fertility rate has fallen from 0.7 to 0.4, and is headed toward a continent-wide convergence.

The combination of all non-Muslim Britons however, have a fertility rate of 1.89[5] thus, whereas the non-Muslim population will be falling by ~5% per generation, the Muslim one will be increasing by50% per generation (actually the figures show it doubling, due to a combination of birth-rate and immigration). Analysing Loonwatch’s own figures further, across Europe the non-Muslim fertility rate is only 1.80 (thus numbers will be decreasing by 10% per generation) whereas Muslim numbers increase by the same amount.

So it’s fair enough to say that it isa myth that “Immigrants from Muslim countries are going to swamp us” in the sense that there is no huge wave of immigration to do so, but (assuming that the projections are correct) the Muslim population of the world will continue to increase, both as a total number and a percentage in the West (and elsewhere) for the (statistically) foreseeable future. If the trends were to continue unabated then it would take about 150-200 years[6] for Britain to become a majority-Muslim Country[7].

Frankly, this is unlikely. It is most likely that Muslim birth-rates will fall, on average, still further and that the trend will flatten out.

However, if the “swamping” is meant culturally, then Muslims could become the largest cultural group much sooner.

3. Muslims will become a majority in European countries

In fact, we now have several large-scale projections based on population-growth trends and immigration rates which show that the Muslim populations of Europe are growing increasingly slowly and that by the middle of this century – – even if immigration rates are not reduced – – the proportion of Muslims in Europe will probably peak somewhere short of 10% (it is currently around 7%). By that point, Muslims will have family sizes and age profiles not that different from Europe in general.

Firstly, you will note that these projections are not referenced and I have been unable to find them. This argument depends on the data you use for projections. Those that claim the “myth” assume that the Muslim birth-rate will stay high, Loonwatch’s source (presumably) assumes it will fall to replacement rate.

As I’ve already demonstrated, the “Muslim take-over” is not impossible, the question is how likely it is. That in turn largely depends on whether or not Muslims adopt Western attitudes to family size. Given the increasing rejection of all things Western by U.K. Muslims, this seems unlikely and therefore I think Loonwatch’s conclusion is at best debatable and at worst ignores the real evidence.

4. Muslims will become a dominant group of cultural outsiders in the United States

Despite the hysterical rhetoric coming from Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and their ilk, Muslims there are not only a very tiny group, but they are also one of the most integrated groups in the country – – especially if you consider that 69% of American Muslims are first-generation immigrants, and 71% of those immigrants arrived after 1990. There are only 2.6 million Muslims in the United States today. By 2030, that number is likely to rise to 6.2 million (because Muslims are young and fertile) – – at which point Muslim will be 1.7% of the population, almost as numerous as Jews and Episcopalians. Even though they’re new, American Muslims tend to be economically successful and highly educated. With 40% of them holding a college degree, they’re the second most educated group after Jews – – and far more educated than Americans in general, only 29% of whom have a degree.

I’ll leave rebutting this one to an American. My own suspicion is that the “hysteria” lies elsewhere. I will note that the “myth” says “a dominant” not “the dominant”. This matters in that a relatively small group can indeed dominate within a democracy. What percentage of the electorate elect a given government? How low would that be if we asked “what percentage of population …”?

5. Muslim immigrants in the West hold the same backward views that Muslims do in the Middle East and Pakistan

Actually, Muslims change their cultural views dramatically when they emigrate. For example, 62% of American Muslims say that “a way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights of Palestinians are addressed” a rate barely lower than that of average Americans (67%), and vastly ahead of the miniscule response among Middle Eastern Muslims – – for whom between 20% and 40% agreed with that statement. Similarly, 39% of American Muslims and 47% of German Muslims say they tolerate homosexuality, compared to single-figure responses in most Islamic countries – and those rates are rising with each immigrant generation. On these important questions, Muslim immigrants are converging with Western values fast.

This is a case of picking your statistics carefully. American Muslims may indeed be highly educated, British Muslims are the least educated group in the Country, 31% have no academic qualifications at all.

American Muslims may indeed be “highly integrated” (not withstanding the home-grown terrorists and their training camps), but British ones aren’t[8] and France and Sweden are well known for having Muslim controlled “no-go” areas into which a Kaffir steps in peril of his life and in peril of being raped if female. All of this does indeed seem to suggest that many European Muslims at least “hold the same backward views that Muslims do in the Middle East and Pakistan”

6. Muslims in America are more loyal to their faith than their country

True, 49% of Americans from Muslim backgrounds say they consider themselves “Muslim first and American second” and 47% claim to attend a mosque on Friday. But you have to compare that to American Christians, 46% of whom say they identify themselves as “Christian first and American second” (that number rises to 70% among Evangelicals). And 45% of American Christians attend a church service every Sunday. In other words, Muslims have adopted exactly the same rate of religious observance as the people around them in their host country. We see this just as strongly in France, where a fifth of Muslims are atheist and only 5% attend a mosque regularly – almost the same rate as French Christians.

This is quite clever in that these statistics seem to imply that Muslims and non-Muslims are equally loyal. But, given that large sections of British/European Muslims want to convert Europe and the U.K. to Islamic states, the fact that Muslims are “Muslim first and xxx second” is rather more significant than is the case for non-Muslim Europeans (and one presumes Americans) who, whilst not necessarily desperately patriotic to their own Countries, support Western principles and wouldn’t want to live in Islamic states[9]. This should be particularly so in America where the justly famed and exalted constitution was founded (predominantly if not totally) by Christians, thus even the most ‘disloyal’ American Christian should be an upholder of that constitution.

Conversely: in the U.K the burgeoning number of Mosques versus the ever-shrinking number of Churches would suggest that the claim that “Muslims have adopted exactly the same rate of religious observance as the people around them in their host country” is dubious at best and specious at worst.

7. Poor Muslims are flooding out of overpopulated countries into the West

In fact, the poorest most overpopulated Muslim countries are producing the least emigration and very little of it is to the West. Immigration tends to come from the countries with the lowest population-growth rates, and it’s rarely to the closest countries. Muslims are far from the largest immigrant group – – even in countries that immediately adjoin the Islamic world. In Spain, which lies across a narrow state from poor Arab countries, only 13% of immigrants are Muslim: Most have come from Spanish-speaking countries across the Atlantic. In Britain, only 28% of immigrants are Muslim. And those numbers do not seem poised to increase.

This “myth” is largely specious, especially in it’s application to the U.K. Given that there is unrestricted (by EU law) movement within the EU, a large percentage of immigrants to the U.K. are inevitably from non-Muslim (EU) Countries – though this could change if ever Turkey was admitted to the EU. Therefore, to make a non-tendentious statement, the reference should look at non-EU immigration.

In 2010 54.5% of UK immigrants were non-EU nationals. Of these therefore, and according to Loonwatch’s own figures, approximately 50% were Muslim (~ 128,500), the majority of whom come from the Indian sub-continent. This point also ignores the very high number of illegal immigrants within the UK, again many of whom originate in the Indian sub-continent.

This is also a “straw man” argument in that how do you define a “flood”? There is certainly a steady flow out of such Countries into the UK at least of about 128K per year (this has been relatively constant for over a decade), but does that constitute a “flood”? Remembering pictures of the Japanese Tsunami and the often (apparently) quite slow but inexorable advance of the waters across the coastal plains, then perhaps this steady flow of immigrants might indeed be termed a flood.

8. Muslim immigrants are angry at the society around them

In fact, Muslim immigrants appear to be MORE satisfied with the world around them, and its secular institutions, than the general population. Muslim immigrants in the United States are more likely to say they are “satisfied with their lives” (84%) than average Americans are (75%) – – and that number rises to 90% for American-born Muslims. Even among Muslims in neighourhoods where the community mosque has been vandalized – – an increasingly frequent occurrence – – fully 76% say that their community is an “excellent” or “good” place to live. This usually extends into pride in national institutions. For example, 83% of British Muslims say they are “proud to be a British citizen,” versus only 79% of Britons in general – – and only 31% of Muslims agree that “Britain’s best days are behind her,” versus 45% of Britons in general.

Again, a careful pick of statistics, see here for a fuller account. In fact British Muslims are the most anti-Western in Europe – when all the Pew questions are considered. Only 44% of younger Muslims (second+ generation immigrants) felt more loyalty to Britain than their Country of origin, 30-40% want to replace British Law with Shariah law (ironically 70% wouldn’t move to a Country with Sharia law, but there you go!), nearly 50% would either like, or wouldn’t mind, if Britain was an Islamic state, approx. 70% believe that anyone who “offends” Islam/Mohammed should be punished by law, 45% believe 9/11 was a “Western/Israeli” conspiracy, 36% believe the British state murdered Princess Diana to stop her marrying Dodi Fayid, 63% believe UK is “Islamophobic” (though 77% have experienced no such “hostility”), 25% support the 7/7 London bombings and 44% of young Muslims weren’t surprised that the perpetrators were British-Muslims, ~22% support suicide bombings and the use of violence for “religious” purposes, 28% said they were “represented politically” by either Mosque or Muslim organization (for non-Muslims that’s about 14% for non-Muslim organisation), 20% would not participate in democratic processes; I could go on (and, yes, these too are “picked stats”, it’s just I can pick a lot more than Loonwatch with no problem!) but I think I’ve made my point.

9. Muslims in the West cheer for terrorist violence

While it might seem chilling to learn that 8% of American Muslims feel that violence against civilian targets is “often or sometimes justified” if the cause is right, you have to compare that to the response given by non-Muslim Americans, 24% of whom said that such attacks are “often or sometimes justified.” This is reflected in most major surveys. When a large-scale survey asked if “attacks on civilians are morally justified,” 1% of the French public, 1% of the German public and 3% of the British public answered yes; among Muslims, the responses were 2%, 0.5%, and 2%. Asked if it is “justifiable to use violence for a noble cause,” 7% of the French public agreed, along with 8% of French Muslims; 10% of the German public and fewer than 2% of German Muslims; 10% of the British public and 8% of British Muslims. This may well be because 85% of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

This is a false premise. Muslims generally don’t “cheer for terrorist violence”per se, they now know that Islamic terror mostly targets Muslims, but they often cheer for terrorist violence directed at the West, Western interests or people. Amusingly, Loonwatch falls on its sword here, in that it admits that “85% of the victims ofIslamic terrorism are Muslims” which is an admission that Islamic terror exists (Oops!).

Again Loonwatch is being disingenuous in identifying “violence against civilians… in a noble cause” with terrorism, unless Loonwatch equates Islamic terrorism with a “noble cause” that is.

I would argue that there are too many imponderables here in terms of definitions to use these statistics in a meaningful way and I doubt the relevance of the questions actually asked to the “myth” also.

Consider: 23 percent of Nigerian Muslims said that terrorist attacks are rarely justified and 46 percent think such killings are often or sometimes justified, thus 69 percent offer some support for terrorism. Note that the victims of such violence were exclusively Christian at the time of the survey (PF, 2006); whereas Pakistani Muslims who condemn terrorism in all circumstances, 69% (2006), was up 23 points from 46% (in 2005) as a result of increasing Islamic terror in Pakistan.

Thus the inference that I draw is that the popularity of Islamic terror in a given Country is in relation to whether it’s victims are predominantly Muslim or non-Muslim.

This does not apply to the West, where Muslims are minority victims in such attacks and thus from the above might be expected to support Islamic terror. But how much certainty can we have that Western Muslim responses to surveys (especially ‘phone surveys) are honest? Given the efficacy of Western security services is preventing Islamic terror attacks, I would suggest that any “wannabe” Western Islamist homicide-bomber would most definitely lie, to do otherwise might be to paint a nice large target on themselves saying “Arrest me, I’m am Islamic terrorist”.

Further: the pointed questions won’t be asked since it would be deemed “Islamophobic” to ask a Muslim “Do you support Islamic terror attacks on non-Muslims” etc.

On the other hand, given the number of “home-grown” Islamic terror (thank you Loonwatch) plots that are thwarted, disrupted, or otherwise stopped in the West, there are clearly Muslims who are prepared to carry out such attacks and they will have their supporters (cheer-leaders in Loonwatch terms).

10. Muslims have become so populous that the most common baby name in Britain is now Mohammed.

This is true – – but it means far less than you’d think. In 2010, if you combined all 12 spelling variants of the Islamic prophet’s name, “Mohammed” was more popular than any other name given to new babies. But that’s more a consequence of naming trends than anything else. In a great many Muslim cultures, ALL male babies are given “Mohammed” as an official first name. But among many Westerners – especially white Anglo-Saxons and black Christians – – there has been an explosion in unorthodox baby names – – as of 2011, these groups are 50% more likely than they were a generation ago to give their children uncommon baby names. As a result, Mohammed manages to reach the Number 1 spot without being all that common – – when combined, babies named after the Islamic prophet made up only 1% of British newborns in 2010.

I have little to argue with here. But there area few points, in which Loonwatch has been slightly disingenuous:

Mohammed may indeed be 1% (7,549) of all registered births (706,248), but that represents 2% of all male births. Despite the “explosion in unorthodox baby names” the top 19 boy and girl names in Britain are all quite traditional (see here). The result is only for versions of “Mhmd” and does not include variations such as “Ahmed”. Whilst it may well be the case that “a generation ago” more traditional names were used, Mhmd has jumped from 16th in 2009 to 1st in 2011, which is too large a leap in that time frame to be due to “unorthodox” baby-names bestowed by idiotic non-Muslim parents (such as the famed Mr. and Mrs. Lear, who named their daughter “Shanda”).

Loonwatch also claims that “In a great many Muslim cultures, ALL male babies are given “Mohammed” as an official first name”, yet statistics indicate that 150 million men and boys in the world bear the name ‘Mhmd’, which is only 23% of all male Muslims. If this fact transfers to the UK, then Mhmds make up 23% of U.K. Muslim babies, thus Muslim boy-births equal approx. 30,200 births this year, or 4.7% of births in total, which is 9.3% of male births.[11]

According to PF Muslims (2,869,000) account for 4.6% of the British total (62,641,000), which in turn means that Muslimas are having almost twice as many children as non-Muslims on a per capita per annum basis.

Thus whilst I wouldn’t disagree with Loonwatch’s assertion that “most common baby name in Britain … [being] Mohammed means far less than you’d think”, I’d add that it means more than Loonwatch implies.

I stated earlier that “all non-Muslim Britons however, have a fertility rate of 1.89” and Loonwatch states that “Pakistani immigrants in Britain have 3.5 children each, their British-born daughters have only 2.5”. The birth-ratios (above) suggest that Loonwatch is underestimating the fertility rate of British Muslims of all types, since the birth-ratio for Muslims is over 2 times that of non-Muslims and requires that Muslim families have 3.8 children each. [12]

Conclusion

In one sense, Loonwatch is right in that it’s various straw-men propositions are “myths”, and carefully picked statistics (not surprisingly) knock them down quite well.

However, one might also observe that the use of the word “myth” is clever. Myths have a basis in truth (however tenuous it may sometimes be) and as shown above, there is a grain, and in some a large measure, of truth in these “myths”.

“1. Muslims have a higher birth rate than other religions, and will take over the world by population.”Muslims do have a higher birth rate than other religions, and whether they will take over the world by population is of course moot, since such long-term projections are impossible (but remember that Gaddafi said this was how Muslims would conquer Europe).

“2. Immigrants from Muslim countries are going to swamp us.” In terms of pure numbers this depends on very unreliable projections and is thus rather an imponderable. What is closer at hand is Muslims becoming the dominant cultural group in at least some European Countries and very soon in some European Cities. Thus the question is really “What is meant by ‘swamping’”? If it is meant culturally, then this is more likely and it is this, I suggest, that is really meant.

“3. Muslims will become a majority in European countries” is really a re-drafting of #2. See comment above.

“4. Muslims will become a dominant group of cultural outsiders in the United States.” I’ve mostly avoided this one, since I’m not American, but I’ll re-state that minorities very often govern democracies.

“5. Muslim immigrants in the West hold the same backward views that Muslims do in the Middle East and Pakistan”. This depends where you look. It would seem to be a myth in America, but far less so in the U.K. Thus I think Loonwatch is guilty of a myopia here.[13]

“6. Muslims in America are more loyal to their faith than their country”. We all agree that it’s true – as it is of American Christians, but this neglects the differences in the consequences of such alignments.

“7. Poor Muslims are flooding out of overpopulated countries into the West.” Setting aside the hyperbole and the myopic Americanism, Muslims are certainly flowing into Europe from “overpopulated” and poor Countries in the number of approx. 128,000 per year into the UK alone. Is this a flood? It’s an extra Norwich/St. Albans (or Topeka/Thousand Oaks/Olathe etc. per year in Louisiana or Alabama alone).

“8. Muslim immigrants are angry at the society around them”. Again there seems to be a dichotomy between American and European Muslims, with the latter being much more inclined to want to force Europe into the Islamic mould (and being prepared to support violence to do it). Thus whether this straw-man myth is really a myth or not, depends on where you live.

“9. Muslims in the West cheer for terrorist violence”. Loonwatch make a big mistake here: they refer to “Islamic terrorism”, thus acknowledging reality! (Oops!) Of course Muslims in the West, or worldwide come to that, don’t “cheer for [Islamic] terrorist violence” – because Muslims are the main victims thereof. However the numbers who do “cheer for [Islamic] terrorist violence” go up radically when the victims are non-Muslims. Even so the statistics Loonwatch uses to make it’s point aren’t really relevant to the issue because such statistics are between hard and impossible to come by for Western Muslims: the exact questions aren’t asked – because to do so would be “Islamophobic” to give just one reason.

“10. Muslims have become so populous that the most common baby name in Britain is now Mohammed.” A fact, which Loonwatch over-discounts, since from these figures it can be shown that Muslims are having twice as many babies per annum per capita than non-Muslims. Thus thefact points not so much to population as to birth-rate.

Overall, this is a clever article by Loonwatch in which a series of part-truths are used to substantiate their points. If this was a Muslim site, I would be tempted to say they were following the Islamic doctrine of Kitman, but I can’t be right on that, especially when they claim “Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists.”[14]

----

footnotes and references.

Note that this will include increased life-expectancy. It’s important not to conflate this with fertility rates, nor birth-rates which are different again.

In this case this simply shows a similar match between both population and birthrates for Muslims viz-a-viz non-Muslims.

The replacement rate for fertility (not birthrate) is two children per woman in a society where the numbers of men (roughly) equals the numbers of women on the grounds that when the woman and her partner die, the children will replace them generationally speaking.

Whether Loonwatch has accounted for the fact that Lebanon is approx. 50% Christian I don’t know, but I wouldn’t care to bet on it.

Overall British fertility rate is 1.95 (somewhat below replacement levels). From “loonwatch”’s own figures we might estimate the average Muslim fertility rate to be 3.0 in the U.K. There are 56 millions in England and Wales, of which ~3 millions are Muslims (according to ONS figures). Therefore the fertility rate for non-Muslim U.K. residents is: 1.95 = 3×3/56 + yx53/56, wherey is the non-Muslim fertility rate. Thus: y = 1.78 x 56/53 = 1.89.

Assume 30 years a generation, therefore 7 generations in ~200 years. Muslim population up 50% every generation (3,4,7,10,15,23,34 millions), non-Muslim falls by 5% per generation (53,50,48,45,43, 41,39,37 millions).

America is in a far better place than Europe due to it’s much smaller percentage of Muslims. But all that means is that America is “behind the curve” relative to Europe.

British Muslims: 20% supported 9/11, 25% 7/7 (London attacks). See here. 20-40% want strict Shariah law enforced on all and seek to use it in their own lives, attempt to set up “Shariah controlled zones” and suburbs, 25% overall have some support for the murder of civilians (Pew Global attitudes, 2006) and hate (and wish to kill) homosexuals, to give but a few examples.

Despite, I suggest, the lemming-like appeasement of Islam and Muslims shown by Western politicians and sections of the Public too.

I am, of course, rounding out long decimals here, which is why 2 x 4.7 = 9.3 not 9.4 etc.

I am not truly comparing like with like here, but it is indicative. At the least it shows the Muslim families are much larger than non-Muslim families which is (obviously) related to fertility and birth rates.

It’s one shared by quite a few Americans I think – assuming that America is the “West” at it’s baldest.

It is interesting that Loonwatch include, amongst their “Headline Loons” such folk as Bat Ye’Or, Walid Shoebat and Wafa Sultan – Muslims and ex-Muslims. In other words people who should know what they are talking about rather better than most (if not all) non-Muslim Westerners.

" jihad will destroy humanity." One in three (well done!). Actually Jihad is destroying humanity, both in the sense of killing people and in the sense of destroying Muslims ability to have any empathy for their fellows - jihad makes Muslims inhumane. - - - Note to "Harket". Assertion isn't evidence, never mind proof (I realise you will find this hard to understand, but do try to think it through).

ANYwritten by
curmudgeon , September 23, 2012

considering the level of hostility of muslims in muslim majority countries towards ANY infidels in their country--anyone ever heard of an act of terror justified because "they are "in" our land"? how many thousand such acts of wanton murder?--i would like to know of one justification for the west allowing ANY vile muslim scum in civilized countries. if there is ANY possibility of our dear muslim immigrants EVER taking over our countries and TRANSFORMING (ever heard that word before?) our countries into vile cesspools of muslim ignorance, hatred, and crime, why would any reasonable people allow ANY malicious muslim invaders to contaminate its land? it is time for civilized people everywhere to study exactly the vile treatment accorded to people defeated by muslim aggression, and apply to our invading muslims exactly the rules that muslims apply to their victims after they have defeated them and taken over their land.

I wishwritten by
Jax , September 23, 2012

I wish this pig Mohammad (piss on his head) never lived....

TO CURMUDGEONwritten by
ANNAD , September 23, 2012

and apply to our invading muslims exactly the rules that muslims apply to their victims after they have defeated them and taken over their land.

Considering Muslim's treatment of their minorities in Muslim dominated lands, it would be right thing for the Western countries and India to swap Christians, Jews, Hindus and other "infidels" who are suffering from persecution under Islamic rule with Muslims who live in the West/India and desperately wish to transform western style democracy into Sharia Land. Everyone will get what they wished for. Mr.Choudry wants sharia rule? No problem. Exchange him and Christian pastor from Iran.

Product of incestwritten by
Newspaniard , September 23, 2012

It is well known that islamists, where they can, are marrying first cousins which is buggering up the genes of their offspring. Surely this form of incest must have an impact on their actual fertility rates? @Jax. I think the BBC4 film on the origins of islam granted your wish. Big Mo didn't exist as portrayed and the koran and supplementary rules wer made up by a bunch of dirty old men.

Muslim Attitudes and Percentswritten by
Porky's2istan , September 23, 2012

It's interesting to see the differences between American muslims and European muslims. America has only 1% muslims, Britain 4%, France 10%. The 'moderation' of islam seems to be in EXACT proportion to how politically weak and small their numbers are. France is already a war zone at 10%, I wonder what will happen when they have 20% muslims?

@Porki's2istanwritten by
The Real Indian , September 23, 2012

and In India they are approx 15%(remember most of the Bangladeshi and Muslims are not covered in census) which could be 1 or 1.5% higher.... Considering their population at 9% at the time of seperation and 25% before Partition... They are likely to coverup the lost percentage during partition... and slowly Islamize India or again Demand another partition.... The time when Muslims get to 40-51In;dia would surely be balkanized or turned into war zone where alots of Kaffir Women be raped Everyday. Here is a little statics of the Maharastra state Jails that would speak a lot about Muslim and Crime go hand in hand... while muslim population in Maharastra is far less than 20% they consist of 72% of the criminals of the state. And more than 50% of the rape crimes.... Like prophet like followers.... :@

...written by
abc , September 23, 2012

Care to give a reference!??????

"Maharastra is far less than 20% they consist of 72% of the criminals of the state. And more than 50% of the rape crimes.... Like prophet like followers.... "

I learned everything written by
Tanstaafl jw , September 24, 2012

I needed to know about Islam on 9/11.

the negetive growthwritten by
non believer , September 24, 2012

The way Muslims are killing their own people, their population may dwindle. Everyday you her killings in Syria,Pakistan,Iraq,Libya,Afghanistan,etc. Each one thinks his Islam is Islam and the other fellow's Islam is not the same way all believers believe that their god is god and the other fellow's god is devil/Satan. The only difference is other believers, unlike Muslims don't resort to mass killing (at least these days)

West should learn from East and nip the nuisance in the budwritten by
Imemyself , September 25, 2012

I advise the citizens of the Western countries to study carefully the drastic demographic changes that occurred in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Western China, Indonesia,Maldives to name a few. The Muslims breed and dont plan a family.The do not respect the law of the land. They cheat, thug, thieve , rape etc..since all these have religious sanctions as long as the victim is a non muslim. You guys in the west keep watching without acting you will face similar problems that we in the East are facing.

@The Real Indian : Well commented!written by
Scrutator , September 26, 2012

"while muslim population in Maharastra is far less than 20% they consist of 72% of the criminals of the state...."

The situation in Britain is similar. A couple of years ago it was reported 33% of the inmates of British prisons were muslims, who constituted only around 3% of the country's population!

@scrutatorwritten by
Mark , September 26, 2012

The trouble with stats like that is how you read them. Does the fact you reported mean: A. Muslims are inherently more criminal* than non-Muslims, or; B. The justice system is "institutionally Islamophobic" and convicts "innocent" Muslims? - - - I think we can both guess which answer both the Islamists and the PC brigade would prefer! This is why stats like that are ambiguous - it all depends on the premises with which you start when assessing their meaning. Always remember the saying "their are lies, damn lies and statistics". - - - * remember that some things (e.g. child-sex) are criminal in the West, but not in Islam and some Muslims "forget" that the U.K. isn't an Islamic state. To be fair, given how our politicians of all stripes and types kowtow to Islam, this is almost a forgivable error.

Old Site Contents

'Islamic Jihad' in BanglaAasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."